There’s little doubt that Antoine Jones, a Washington nightclub owner was actually trafficking cocaine when a joint FBI-Washington D.C. police team attached a GPS tracking device to his Jeep. They knew that he had stashed his ill-gotten goods somewhere other than his home. Sure enough, after following Jones to another home, cops discovered nearly 100 kilograms of the illegal narcotic, along with about $850,000 in cash. Jones was later convicted of cocaine trafficking and sentenced to no less than life in prison.
Strangely, a search warrant to attach the device had been granted by a Judge, but the device was not attached within the 10 days authorized and the car traveled outside of Washington DC, which was beyond the scope of the warrant. Jones was then monitored for nearly a month until he was finally arrested at a Maryland drug den.
Few will likely cheer a convicted drug dealer’s High Court victory, especially in light of its being based in a “technicality”, but all Americans should applaud this decision. GPS monitoring has become a critically important law enforcement tool in dealing with everyone from child molesters to drug traffickers. Countless violent criminals have been arrested, tried and convicted with evidence gained from the high-tech device. But the message sent by the Supreme Court is clear: When it comes to automobiles, attaching a GPS device is a constitutional search and seizure. The Court ruled: “The government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information,” “We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted.”
4th Amendment, US Constitution“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”
Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking for the five justice majority, wrote that a person’s property is “legally sacred, and the government had to justify placing a GPS device on the vehicle.” Scalia further explained electronic age does not change a centuries-old concept. That begs the question: How far reaching will the impact of this decision be?
If search and seizure laws apply…even in this “electronic age”, what about cell phones? They are another major source of evidence in criminal cases. The California Supreme Court ruled recently that cops do not need a search warrant to seize a cell phone from an arrestee and view its contents. The court ruled that police can search the cell phone of a person who’s been arrested — including text messages — without obtaining a warrant, and use that data as evidence. This ruling has the potential of rubber stamping abuse by law enforcement, such as wide-ranging warrantless searches of e-mails, documents, photos and contacts contained in your IPhone or Blackberry. It could also mean that your tablet and laptop computer would be subject to a warrantless search.
Gregory Diaz, the man convicted in the California case appealed to the US Supreme Court. Last October, without explanation, the High Court refused to hear the case, thereby passing up on a precedent setting decision and fuling that would have had enormous 4th Amendment implications. If an automobile is “personal Property” for search and seizure purposes, how is it possible that the cell phone in your pocket is not?
How many among us have information on our cell phones that is personal, private and in the worst case scenario could be used against us in a court of law? In a recent case I worked on, my client was busted by CHP officers, who then seized his cell phone and found pictures of “tagging” on a freeway overpass on the device. He was then prosecuted for the vandalism. It was later learned he had nothing to do with the crime, despite the photos on his phone. He went through months of court hearings before the charges were ultimately dismissed. It may seem like small potatoes, but it was huge to my client.
It’s hard to imagine anything today that is more worthy of constitutional protection than these very personal devices. While the court rejected Gregory Diaz’ case, count on them hearing and ruling on a similar case in the near future. In the mean time, Justices Scalia, John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor are to be commended for a decision which strikes a blow against reckless government intrusion.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.